Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

In point #14 with regards punishing those who do sabb of the Sunni Sahaba, what does Ibn Taimiyah say about the punishment? If he does not say anything explicitly, readers can easily infer the punishment from the one he suggested for those who sabb the Prophet and Allah. Ibn Taimiyah might have wanted to write subtly about what do do with Shias who do sabb, but it's not hard to derive the conclusion and to see on whom it applies. Because whether Shias aka Rafidis back then did sabb publicly or not, their rejection and hatred of the Sunni sahaba was well known. This was then, but things have not changed today. Find me a Shia, except for some political ones riding the Islamic-unity bandwagon, who do not do sabb of the Sunni Sahaba.

We can see how Ibn Taimyah shrewdly declared almost every Shi'a as Rafidi and through this, kafir. Once they become kafir, it is easy to legitimise punishment, and this hardcore Sunni scholars have taken to mean the killing of the kafir Shia people.

Manzur Nomani, a Deobandi scholar from India, wrote an anti-Shia treatise which became the magna carta of sectarian killers in the Subcontinent. In which he quotes Ibn Taimiyah extensively and derives pretty much the same conclusion that

i) all Shias are rafidhis, whether they do sabb publicly or not.

ii) Because they are rafidis, and because we know that all of them do sabb, it is legitimate to kill all of them.

Once the arrow is out of the bow, you can't put it back.

It is as clear as the sun in midday and dose not need further elaboration. Unless isis are Satan worshippers, lizards from Mars .

My deepest apologies then for ibn taymyiah for accusing him wrongly and for us Shia being gullible , our speakers are a joke and our scholars are mostly unreliable , our books need to be reinvented and our cultures are the disgrace of humanity.

Share on other sites

In point #14 with regards punishing those who do sabb of the Sunni Sahaba, what does Ibn Taimiyah say about the punishment? If he does not say anything explicitly, readers can easily infer the punishment from the one he suggested for those who sabb the Prophet and Allah. Ibn Taimiyah might have wanted to write subtly about what do do with Shias who do sabb, but it's not hard to derive the conclusion and to see on whom it applies. Because whether Shias aka Rafidis back then did sabb publicly or not, their rejection and hatred of the Sunni sahaba was well known. This was then, but things have not changed today. Find me a Shia, except for some political ones riding the Islamic-unity bandwagon, who do not do sabb of the Sunni Sahaba.

Within his book al-Saarim he talks about the punishment being ta`zeer (discretionary punishment of the ruler). Ibn Taymiyyah explains in details that if a person is said to do sabb, it cannot be a word of mouth, it must be proven from him and everyone must hear from him, not just a few witnesses. There has to be a trial, not just go to every household and "kill them wherever you see them". Not every Shee`ah is considered a Rafidi, just look through the books of jarh wa ta`deel of the Sunnis. You'll see countless of examples of someone who is considered as having "shi'i leanings", "is a Shee`ah", "ghuluww in his Shi'ism", and a "rafidi". There is a many different levels of Shi'ism back in the day, just as there are many levels today.

Rafidism have always been considered as kufr to the Sunni ideology, why make it seem as if Ibn Taymiyyah was the first one to do so? Since the dawn of Sunni scholars there are quotes of their hatred to shi'ism and their declaration of those who are Rafidi a Kafir. The only thing Ibn Taymiyyah did differently than his Sunni predecessors was his debate against al-Hilli. Other than that, the rhetoric is not any different from other Sunni scholars.

The poem says nothing of killing Shee`ahs, and we have already covered al-Saarim al-Maslool, and `Ammar admitted himself that Ibn Taymiyyah didn't explicitly call for the killing of Shee`ahs.

`Ammar wanted us to "read between the lines" of Ibn Taymiyyah's words, but in his speech on ISIS he was so "matter of fact" that the audience was left to conclude that Ibn Taymiyyah has an explicit fatwa to kill all the shee`ahs. I find this rather dangerous to start "reading between the lines of scholars", And then blame a few bad apples who misinterpret books of scholars who only use it to suit their own political agendas.

The same can be done by our Safawid Shi'ah scholars who wrote anti-Sufi Risaalahs and books. If we wanted to "read between the lines", then we can easily conclude that the Shi'i ideology during the Safawid was to kill every Sufi. It is a slippery slope.

Share on other sites

Within his book al-Saarim he talks about the punishment being ta`zeer (discretionary punishment of the ruler). Ibn Taymiyyah explains in details that if a person is said to do sabb, it cannot be a word of mouth, it must be proven from him and everyone must hear from him, not just a few witnesses. There has to be a trial, not just go to every household and "kill them wherever you see them". Not every Shee`ah is considered a Rafidi, just look through the books of jarh wa ta`deel of the Sunnis. You'll see countless of examples of someone who is considered as having "shi'i leanings", "is a Shee`ah", "ghuluww in his Shi'ism", and a "rafidi". There is a many different levels of Shi'ism back in the day, just as there are many levels today.

Rafidism have always been considered as kufr to the Sunni ideology, why make it seem as if Ibn Taymiyyah was the first one to do so? Since the dawn of Sunni scholars there are quotes of their hatred to shi'ism and their declaration of those who are Rafidi a Kafir. The only thing Ibn Taymiyyah did differently than his Sunni predecessors was his debate against al-Hilli. Other than that, the rhetoric is not any different from other Sunni scholars.

The poem says nothing of killing Shee`ahs, and we have already covered al-Saarim al-Maslool, and `Ammar admitted himself that Ibn Taymiyyah didn't explicitly call for the killing of Shee`ahs.

`Ammar wanted us to "read between the lines" of Ibn Taymiyyah's words, but in his speech on ISIS he was so "matter of fact" that the audience was left to conclude that Ibn Taymiyyah has an explicit fatwa to kill all the shee`ahs. I find this rather dangerous to start "reading between the lines of scholars", And then blame a few bad apples who misinterpret books of scholars who only use it to suit their own political agendas.

The same can be done by our Safawid Shi'ah scholars who wrote anti-Sufi Risaalahs and books. If we wanted to "read between the lines", then we can easily conclude that the Shi'i ideology during the Safawid was to kill every Sufi. It is a slippery slope.

(salam)

I wasn't quoting him to support any of such views. I simply quoted what he was saying. Don't blame the messenger.

It is pretty obvious what his thoughts were and it is pretty obvious that ISIS are following his ideology. I think that's the main point here, Saudi Arabia is funding a dangerous ideology and that is the ideology of Wahabism.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

First off, a Rafidhi in terms of classical usage was not for "every shia", it was used for those who specifically did shatm on Abu Bakr and `Umar publicly.

That is an inaccurate definition. The term 'Shī'ī' was originally used by them for those who favor Ali over Uthman. The 'rafidhī' is the one who favors Ali over Abu Bakr, not necessarily shatm, which is what you are saying. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani defines the rafidhi clearly in the second volume of his Muqqadimah of Fath al-Bari,

And al-Tashayyu', is the loving of Ali, and preferring him over the sahabah, and he who prefers him over Abu Bakr and Umar, then he is extreme in his tashayyu', and is known as a rafidhi, and if he added to that the insulting of Abu Bakr and Umar, and declares his anger at them, then he is extreme in his rafdh.

And al-Tashayyu', is the loving of Ali, and preferring him over the sahabah, and he who prefers him over Abu Bakr and Umar, then he is extreme in his tashayyu', and is known as a rafidhi, and if he added to that the insulting of Abu Bakr and Umar, and declares his anger at them, then he is extreme in his rafdh.

Thank you for this quote.

al-Dhahabi has a slight difference in his definition that is found in his Meezaan al-`Itidaal, vol. 1, pg. 5 - 6 (under Abaan b. Taghlib). He calls Abaan "hardcore Shi'i" and other called him Ghuluww in his Shi'ism, but still thiqah. And then he answers a question of how is it possible to accept narrations of a mubtadi` and how can a mubtadi` be thiqah and `adl. He says there are two types of ghuluww. Minor ghuluww which found in many of the tabi`i, they were even ghuluww in Shi'ism, they were truthful and pious. The Major bid`ah are those who were rafidi and they would villify Abu Bakr and `Umar and do du`a (i.e. la`nah) to this, and he says this type is not honorable nor is it allowed to be used. Then he says the the ghali Shi'is at the time of the salaf were known by those who talked about Talhah, Zubayr, `Umar and those who fought Imam Ali and did sabb to them. While the ghali shi'as in his time would declare them being a kafir and do bara'a from the Shaykhayn. He then says that there is no indication that Aban b. Taghlib ever talked against Abu Bakr & `Umar, he simply thought `Ali was better than them.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Nasibis are good at twisting words. How can they call the sahaba and tabiin a rawafidh which is a late term or Shia? It defies their twisted history. Button of the line is that Shia will be targeted because they are Shia who had been demonized by earlier nawasib like dhahabi .

Even Adnan Ibrahim, I'm mentioning him for second time if someone is counting, in his lectures figured this discrepancy with labels given to early Muslims. If you did sabb to Ali, then RD for you but if you went against uthman or did sabb to Abu Bakr or even thought he is not the best then you are ranging from having wounded religion to total heretic.

What is the point of bringing these definition when we know that we are the Shia and the rawafidh of this age? And all animosity that was said against us by those nawasib is being applied on us by cutting heads?

Stop derailing the thread. And stop giving the nawasib credits. May Allah curse them eternally.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

After reading the entire two pages, it is well understood how the ink of a scholar runs through the blood. The ink of Ibn Taymiyyah is running through the blood of all those who are on side of ISIS and that ink has been quoted in lectures distributed in leaflets and now as mobile messages.

Speaking on Pulpit is an art and as human beings people does commit mistakes but the way things have heated up here it looks like Syed Ammar has done the greatest mistake of his life. Gotcha like attitude ruins the message regarding his idea of what are the thoughts of non shia as of today and thus deduces why today there has been unprecedented mass killing of shias. If not directly, indirectly yes Ibn Taymiyyah' books does carry the blame so what is a big issue in verbatim speeches every one does mistakes like that?

OK few questions for the answers:-

1. What are the majority thoughts amongst the sunni today ?

2. Isn't the books of Ibn Taymiyyah and Abdul Wahab have provided the bases of such material which has sowed the seed of hateredness? Yes or no?

3. Is there any need to defend Ibn Taymiyyah stance rather then quoting his false ideas and mistakes and unnecessarily condemn Syed Ammar for his mistakes ?

My personal opinion, sorry if i offend and people have all the rights to disagree, but, if Mods response is like defending Ibn Taymiyyah as of which what has been understood by mere reading of the posts, then i have a feeling that people who run RTS like pages have all the rights to blame ShiaChat as BatriChat and overwhelming majority then revisit every post with this pre-occupation of minds which is by all means getting positives instead of negative points. :no:

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

After reading the entire two pages, it is well understood how the ink of a scholar runs through the blood. The ink of Ibn Taymiyyah is running through the blood of all those who are on side of ISIS and that ink has been quoted in lectures distributed in leaflets and now as mobile messages.

Speaking on Pulpit is an art and as human beings people does commit mistakes but the way things have heated up here it looks like Syed Ammar has done the greatest mistake of his life. Gotcha like attitude ruins the message regarding his idea of what are the thoughts of non shia as of today and thus deduces why today there has been unprecedented mass killing of shias. If not directly, indirectly yes Ibn Taymiyyah' books does carry the blame so what is a big issue in verbatim speeches every one does mistakes like that?

OK few questions for the answers:-

1. What are the majority thoughts amongst the sunni today ?

2. Isn't the books of Ibn Taymiyyah and Abdul Wahab have provided the bases of such material which has sowed the seed of hateredness? Yes or no?

3. Is there any need to defend Ibn Taymiyyah stance rather then quoting his false ideas and mistakes and unnecessarily condemn Syed Ammar for his mistakes ?

My personal opinion, sorry if i offend and people have all the rights to disagree, but, if Mods response is like defending Ibn Taymiyyah as of which what has been understood by mere reading of the posts, then i have a feeling that people who run RTS like pages have all the rights to blame ShiaChat as BatriChat and overwhelming majority then revisit every post with this pre-occupation of minds which is by all means getting positives instead of negative points. :no:

:yaali:

I believe you're failing to see the bigger picture here. This has nothing to do with defending Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn And Al-Wahab or any other Nasibi of their likes. It's about the respresantives of our Madhab and being concerned on the lack of accuracy in their referencing and quotating of books, positions and statements from our opponents to try to prove a position against them which in reality might not always be true. In other words, it's about ensuring the etiquettes of dialouge to be maintained not only from the opponents side, but most importantly our side first.

As mentioned earlier, the respected Sayed has stated that Ibn Taymiyah in his Minhaj Al-Sunnah and Ibn Abd Al-Wahab in Al-Risalah Fi Arad 'Alah Al-Rafidha, both issue verdicts in their own words in permitting the killing of Shi'as, but in reality, in both of those books there are no such verdicts where those two literally and explicitly state that specifically in those two books of theirs. Hence, such poor referencing gives an advantage for the opponents who eventually refer back to those books, flip every page through them hoping to find the verdicts and eventually when they don't find them, they will take the opportunity to justify the accusation towards the Sayed of being a liar. Yes those books do contain hate speech and baseless generalizations against Shi'as and noone is denying that. However, that is still not equivalent to a Fiqhi verdict given by him and followed by Salafi/Wahabi jursits recognizing the absolute legalizing killing of Shi'as. If the Sayed stressed on the hate speech in those books being the main cause that drives ISIS to kill Shi'as, rather than being from a baseless verdict, his position would have been more soundly established.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I believe you're failing to see the bigger picture here. This has nothing to do with defending Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn And Al-Wahab or any other Nasibi of their likes. It's about the respresantives of our Madhab and being concerned on the lack of accuracy in their referencing and quotating of books, positions and statements from our opponents to try to prove a position against them which in reality might not always be true. In other words, it's about ensuring the etiquettes of dialouge to be maintained not only from the opponents side, but most importantly our side first.

As mentioned earlier, the respected Sayed has stated that Ibn Taymiyah in his Minhaj Al-Sunnah and Ibn Abd Al-Wahab in Al-Risalah Fi Arad 'Alah Al-Rafidha, both issue verdicts in their own words in permitting the killing of Shi'as, but in reality, in both of those books there are no such verdicts where those two literally and explicitly state that specifically in those two books of theirs. Hence, such poor referencing gives an advantage for the opponents who eventually refer back to those books, flip every page through them hoping to find the verdicts and eventually when they don't find them, they will take the opportunity to justify the accusation towards the Sayed of being a liar. Yes those books do contain hate speech and baseless generalizations against Shi'as and noone is denying that. However, that is still not equivalent to a Fiqhi verdict given by him and followed by Salafi/Wahabi jursits recognizing the absolute legalizing killing of Shi'as. If the Sayed stressed on the hate speech in those books being the main cause that drives ISIS to kill Shi'as, rather than being from a baseless verdict, his position would have been more soundly established.

Then enlighten us about their teachings that upon them they justify killing of the Shia.

Share on other sites

His lecture will only promote more hate, more anti-Shi'a sentiment. In fact Sunnis who are indifferent will have animosity against Shi'a after listening to this flamboyant talk. Utter stupidity on his part. No wonder all ulema from a proper Howza say to avoid this self-promoting orator. In fact with these lectures, SHIA will begin to HATE Sunnis.

Imam Husain (as)'s message is completely made irrelavent by his lectures.

Muharram lectures aren't about entertaining the audience. It's about enriching people's lives with useful and PRACTICAL information that helps them grow in their iman and spirituality.

Ammar has an agenda and that's to entertain folks who fill his pockets.

Share on other sites

His lecture will only promote more hate, more anti-Shi'a sentiment. In fact Sunnis who are indifferent will have animosity against Shi'a after listening to this flamboyant talk. Utter stupidity on his part. No wonder all ulema from a proper Howza say to avoid this self-promoting orator. In fact with these lectures, SHIA will begin to HATE Sunnis.

Imam Husain (as)'s message is completely made irrelavent by his lectures.

Muharram lectures aren't about entertaining the audience. It's about enriching people's lives with useful and PRACTICAL information that helps them grow in their iman and spirituality.

Ammar has an agenda and that's to entertain folks who fill his pockets.

You take your news from blog posts? I wonder why no credible news agency out there is reporting these statistics from the interior ministry..hmmm...

Maybe this could explain things:

Palestinians in Iraq Pay the Cost of Being 'Saddam's People'

BAGHDAD -- For years, Saddam Hussein harbored a small population of Palestinians in Iraq, trotting them out to cheer whenever he went to war -- which he routinely justified as essential to Arab nationalism and the Palestinian cause.

Shiites and other Iraqis looked glumly at his wards, jealous of the Palestinians' privilege and status while others suffered.

Now Hussein is in prison. The Shiites are in power. The Palestinians are worried.

"From the first week of Jafari's government, everything started to go bad for us," Mohammed Abdulah, a 36-year-old Palestinian, said of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari, a Shiite who took office last spring.

Their fears were sparked by the arrest in May of four Palestinians by the Interior Ministry, which critics accuse of being infiltrated by militiamen loyal to Shiite factions and of torturing prisoners. The four men were plucked from the warren of Palestinian housing in eastern Baghdad in a hail of gunshots, then paraded on national television as terrorists.

"They showed these awful pictures of the bombing and had victory music showing the Palestinians living in Iraq and killing Iraqis with bombs," said Ayman Shaban, 33, a Sunni cleric and a Palestinian. "They humiliated the Palestinians and provoked people against us."

In a neat apartment decorated only with framed sayings of the Koran, Niam Mohammed Ahmed, the wife of one of the jailed men, said her husband "was arrested just because he was a Palestinian." Ahmed said security agents kicked her 6-year-old boy and cursed him as "son of a dog."

"It used to be good here, but not now," said Takiya Khuder Ahmed, 61, the bedridden mother of three of the suspects. She asserted that the men were not involved in politics: "They are innocent."

Iraqi authorities say the men, who are awaiting trial, are connected to a mid-morning bombing at an east Baghdad market in which more than 15 people were killed and scores were injured. They deny that Palestinians are being targeted.

"There is no mistreatment of Palestinians here," Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said recently. "We divide them into two categories, as we do with all Iraqis. The majority are safe, secure people who have lived here and want to live in this country. A small minority are taking part in terrorist operations."

"I have, in the Ministry of the Interior, only about 30 names of Palestinians who are watched or surveilled. It's a small number," he said.

But the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) recently expressed renewed concern for the Palestinians -- partly because of rising public anger at all non-Iraqi Arabs, who are suspected of coming here to join the insurgency.

"They have been victims of night raids, arbitrary arrests and torture carried out by Iraqi security forces," according to Astrid Van Genderen Stort, a UNHCR spokeswoman in Geneva. Palestinians in Baghdad offer up stories of daily insults and of being spat upon and beaten by Iraqis who learn of their nationality.

"The problem is, they consider us former regime henchmen," said Ahmed Mussa, 30, a lawyer who wears three-piece suits. After Mussa began representing the four men arrested in May, he started receiving death threats in the mail.

After the fall of Hussein in 2003, several thousand Palestinians left for Jordan and were stuck in a no-man's land at the border. Most eventually went to a refugee camp just inside Jordan. With the new threats, another group of 19 Palestinians left the capital in October for Syria and spent more than a month camped in the no-man's land before they were finally let into a refugee camp in northeastern Syria, according to Stort.

But the majority of Palestinians here are hunkering down in Baghdad. Most live in a neighborhood of shabby concrete buildings where they have been housed, at government expense, for decades.

Successive Iraqi governments nurtured them, and Hussein used them to bolster his claim as an Arab nationalist leader. They were frequently lauded in the government-controlled media. Hussein made world headlines by promising a house and $25,000 to each Palestinian family in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that had a member killed while attacking Israel.Iraq's Palestinian population largely grew from the nearly 4,000 who fled to Iraq when Jewish forces took control of Haifa during the creation of Israel in 1948. The UNHCR says there are now about 23,000 Palestinians here. But others say the true number of Palestinians, including those who have managed to blend into Iraqi society, is several times that.

Palestinians were not allowed to become Iraqi citizens under Hussein's rule and were discouraged from purchasing property, but they were given housing and free utilities and were exempt from military service. They were also favored for government positions and allowed to travel more freely than Iraqi citizens.

Shiites, who were massacred and tortured by the thousands, resented how Hussein's government championed the Palestinians' plight. Some Iraqis sneeringly called them saddamiyoon -- Saddam's people.

The Palestinians say their position was less privileged than it seemed. "This was all just talk," said Thayer Mahdi, 39, a Palestinian who owns a clothing store. "We suffered like all Iraqis."

When Hussein fell, nearly 1,500 Palestinians were forced from their homes as landlords suddenly found themselves free to raise rents and evict their formerly privileged tenants. They lived for a while in tents at a sports club in Baghdad before eventually finding other housing.

Since the arrest of the four men on May 12, Palestinians say at least five men have recently been kidnapped and killed. More than 100 were imprisoned by U.S. or Iraqi forces, although that number has dropped by about half, they say.

Kidnappings, killings and detentions occur in all segments of Iraqi society. But the Palestinians say they are especially vulnerable.

"We are afraid. We are afraid that we will be stopped at a checkpoint and arrested and accused of being a terrorist," said Shaban, the Palestinian cleric. "There is nothing you could do if that happened."

Palestinian rights groups say masked Hamas police beat and detained members of the Gaza Strip's tiny Shia Muslim community during a religious commemoration last week.

It was the first claim of harassment by a group of Shia worshippers against the territory's rulers, who are Sunni Muslims. Hamas officials denied the allegations. Hamas is believed to enjoy close ties with Iran, the Shia Islamic republic.

Rights groups reported on Tuesday a separate incident that also occurred last week - a knife attack on a local non-governmental organisation executive.

The accusations came as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the main Palestinian Islamist movements, were holding talks about merging their two factions, according to sources on both sides.

A man who described himself as a Shia Muslim said police burst into a house where followers were marking Arbaeen, commemorating the end of 40 days of mourning following the anniversary of the death of Imam Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad.

Complaints filed

The man said about 15 worshippers were beaten and detained. He declined to be identified, fearing further harassment.

But some of the men filed complaints to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and the Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, which both sharply condemned Hamas over the attack.

Mezan said in a statement that during Saturday evening's incident in the town of Beit Lahia, police smashed up the apartment, broke the bones of seven of the men, detained some of them at a police station and beat them again before sending them to a military hospital for treatment.

"The attack is a violation of the freedom ... to practise one's faith," Samir Zakout, a Mezan official, said.

Ihab Ghussein, a Hamas interior ministry spokesman, said on Tuesday that police stormed the apartment of a group of "outlaws" who were planning "criminal acts".

He also said he was unaware of the presence of any Shia Muslims in Gaza and that his offices would look into right groups' allegations that the men were beaten.

There are no official statistics on the number of Gaza's Shia Muslims. They are believed to number several dozen - a minuscule minority among a population of 1.6 million people who are overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim.

The numbers I provided are about suicide bombers and you can check with any Iraqi journalist from within Iraq. It is not about total number of isis fighters.

And if you think what I said can spread hate then you surely was not a flower of the latest quds day, all Shia across Arab world were wounded by the Palestinians lack of brain, choosing those who trade them as bombers and refugees like Qatar.

If you want I can look for some articles that reflected theses hard feelings.

In this late conflict, sunnis had done more harm to themselves than anyone else. The destruction to over their own people, their own cities and regions and their own women. Sunnis politicians are weaker day after day because they burned all their cards. But we as Shia still say that isis are not Muslims. I say it to sunnis and salafis I work with and they cannot defend that.

Isis issue is not about sunni Shia conflict. It is not about sahaba. It is about making our God the god of blood she'd and destruction and whoever wants to push toward that from any background is pure Satan.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

^You obviously didn't diligently read anything I quoted, I even put in bold the main points; the article I linked to was from 2005 about the corruption of the Interior Ministry and how it's infiltrated by sectarian militias.This was besides the fact that Palestinians were generally resented by Iraqis as a whole because of Saddam's disproportionate focus on them and not the welfare of his citizens. Point being that the Interior Ministry is the last source you should be looking up to with its long-standing hatred, lies and brutality against Palestinians.

Good luck justifying a 6 year old Palestinian boy being kicked about by these thugs you adore.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

^You obviously didn't diligently read anything I quoted, I even put in bold the main points; the article I linked to was from 2005 about the corruption of the Interior Ministry and how it's infiltrated by sectarian militias.This was besides the fact that Palestinians were generally resented by Iraqis as a whole because of Saddam's disproportionate focus on them and not the welfare of his citizens. Point being that the Interior Ministry is the last source you should be looking up to with its long-standing hatred, lies and brutality against Palestinians.

Good luck justifying a 6 year old Palestinian boy being kicked about by these thugs you adore.

I adore who?

0.o

No. I've heard these news through other sources than interior ministry and I'm not against palest in Ian cause. But balance should be made.

Btw, these pro isis Palestinians probably were recruited from the poor camps they live in in nearby countries rather than Palestinians from inside of Palestine. Whichever way things went, it is all but dirty politics .

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Doubtful. I think he might have said that, if he did in fact say that, as a joke/insult. Just my opinion though.

I was approached by the mosque lead and he told me he was going to extend an invitation to Tawhidi based on Ammar's recommendation. His "joke" could have damned 100s of unexpecting youths and their parents.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ya falsteen'iann you have more hathh,then anyone out there. The sh3oob will fight for you,build houses for you,stand by you..

I dont see people standing by iraq,as much as them standing by falisdeeen. Sar bas al falsdieenii 3nadaa ahasas,the rest of the basharieaa are nothing. I feel sorry for the shia paliestines and the kids. Anyone that sucks up to saddam and his family can goo to taholaa land.

I didnt watch the video, I cant stand ammar. And no I dont think all palisteines are the same and from what I know theirs more saudi arabian isis members then palistainies.

Share on other sites

I was approached by the mosque lead and he told me he was going to extend an invitation to Tawhidi based on Ammar's recommendation. His "joke" could have damned 100s of unexpecting youths and their parents.

Link to post

Share on other sites

That's actually a high number (46) for jorden. Considering that they have alot of salafies and they also dont like shia much,and they give people with a iraiani stamp in their passport a harder time to enter the country and in some cases refusing them entery which by the way happens to alot of iraqies that go from iraq to jorden,with the iraqi passport.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I was approached by the mosque lead and he told me he was going to extend an invitation to Tawhidi based on Ammar's recommendation. His "joke" could have damned 100s of unexpecting youths and their parents.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I read at a different thread (brother Ali Moussaa) the organizers at the khoja community condemned what he said about the Palestinians. Does that mean they will not invite him in the future? Our khoja brothers can afford his honorarium, and from now on if he is invited to other places is it based on his political stance or what is the standard really?

Take for example the YMA in Dearborn, MI. If a speaker is not according to there line of politics, they will not be invited again. I know of one speaker who wasn't invited again due to a political statement he said on the podium. Don't even think you have a chance to speak if you are pro WF. That is why in Dearborn you have over 20 places you can go based on what your political line and beliefs are. Did you know Dearborn has its own Marj3. :-) Sub7an'Allah. Again, what are the standards I ask.